🚀 go-pugleaf

In <72196@cup.portal.com> lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman) writes:

>I wrote:
>>Re. the exploding flywheel: I was mulling on flash-filling the
>>cavity with thick-setting foam, but I imagine that the response
>>time is way too long compared with the split of the wheel.
>>Comments?

>Lydick:
>: Even if the response time weren't too long, this "foam" would merely be yet
>: another thing for the flywheel fragments to vaporize, and would almost
>: certainly only exacerbate the problem.  Why do so many people have so little
>: grasp of the amount of energy we're talking about, here?

>Arrogant prating becomes you, sweetie. Nice to see a preacher here 'bouts.

>The largest difference, in any case, between the "exploding gasoline"
>scenarios and the broken flywheel is not the energy but the instantaneous
>power - probably between 8 and 10 orders, depending.

>The energy dissipation within the volume of the container tends to zero
>for a vacuum; most of it occurs at the container walls. If one could
>spread out the volume of energy dissipation, the chances of containment
>are concomitantly higher. Despite this fact, I don't *really* think foam
>is going to do it.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| lord snooty @the giant |  Would You Like Space Potatoes With That?       |
>| poisoned electric head |              andrew_-_palfreyman@cup.portal.com |
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it is any help, the last issue of IEEE Spectrum was all about EVs. As
I recall, there was an article on batteries which discussed work in
progress on flywheel batteries. It might help the discussion to look
it up.

Bob